My wife's parents are deaf (in fact my wife graduated from Gallaudet, you can't get more Deaf cred than that...) and we know plenty of people involved with this scam. Its amazing how much they were making, how long it went on, and how obvious the FCC was.
Sorry, I already have a patent covering moving objects and digital representations of such objects. Your patent would only be a minor refinement of mine, so you lose.
Agreed, it's pointless to talk about the quantity of patents you have, it's the quality of patents that really matters.
Which is why my new patent will be the one to rule them all. You've heard of the one-click patent Amazon has. Wait for it...
The roll-over patent. Why should you have to move your mouse to a portion of a website and go through the trouble of clicking your mouse to buy what you want. My patent gets rid of the burdensome and tiring clicking.
If you want something, just move your mouse to what your want and we'll ship it to you. It's a simple as that. I'm going to be freaking rich!
Thank you Dirk Belligerent for having the least amount of clue as anyone on the internet.
Where did I ever say that Gary Numan or the Divinyls did not "have substantial careers outside of their one hit." I didn't say any such thing, because the careers of Numan and the Divinyls were not the point of my post!!!!
The point of my post was that no one is ever guaranteed a perpetual career. Even if you use the label system, whether you use the internet, or whether you use a combination both (as Ok Go did).
So even if Ok Go's career is over (and I'm not saying it is, in fact it's impossible for me to make such a prediction) you cannot blame the internet for that fact.
Actually upon thinking about it, didn't Gary Numan give up music entirely to fly airplanes? Or was that Bruce Dickinson? Maybe it was both. But you know what, it does not matter one bit to what I was saying.
"Phil Spector used to mix recordings so things would sound good through a car radio, but that was a creative choice."
And millions of peopled loved his recordings and his creative choices. Just like hundreds, maybe thousands of people love lo-fi.
"You are confusing standards of music with standards of music reproduction."
Actually, I was making a joke to explain a point. My point has already been said, a million subjective opinions does not make it an objective opinion.
I'm not disagreeing with your subjective opinions. You subjectively find more bits per second to be of a higher quality. Other people find less bits to be of a higher quality. No one is right and no one is wrong. Until somebody starts objectifying those beliefs.
"Fidelity to the artist's sound is the criterion of quality in music reproduction."
To you and to many other people. But not to everyone. I've already cited to two sources to prove my point.
"I strongly doubt that there are very many consumers (not artists) who would choose bad reproduction over good reproduction"
You might be right. But merely because millions of people subjectively agree on the same thing, does not make it an objective truth. If that's the case, then the music of Aerosmith is of a high objective quality. And I cannot possibly accept that as being true.
"what is asinine it is to suggest that there isn't a loss in quality."
Ever hear of Lo-fi music? Here's a bit from Wikipedia.
"a term used to describe music in which the sound is of a lower quality than the usual standard. The qualities of lo-fi are usually achieved by either degrading the quality of the recorded audio, or using certain equipment. Recent uses of the phrase has led to it becoming a genre, although it still remains as an aesthetic in music recording practice. Many lo-fi artists use inexpensive cassette tape recorders. The term was adopted by WFMU DJ William Berger who dedicated a half hour segment of his program to home recorded music throughout the late '80s under the name Lo-fi."
Some people love lo-fi. They think that genre of music is of high quality. (Much like a friend I had back in the 70s who would turn the bass way down and the treble way up. He thought the music sounded better because it was "more live." I have no idea what that meant.)
What you are doing is confusing quantity, the number of bits per second, with the the subjective value the music as to a person, which is quality.
Adding more bits to a sound does not necessary increase the quality of a song any more than adding more notes would.
I agree with what you're saying except for this: "Apple is 100% focused on consumer value". I think that's complete BS. Apple doesn't give a frick about value. In fact I think if someone even used the word "value" in a meeting Jobs would fire him on the spot.
If Apple's mobile devices are the future of computing, you can expect that future to be one with more limits on innovation and competition than the PC era that came before. It's frustrating to see Apple, the original pioneer in generative computing, putting shackles on the market it leads.
So the infamous 1984 advertisement was actually brilliant irony?
I'm shocked, completely flipping shocked Apple let this FIOA request happen without intervening somehow. They could have raised a bunch of BS about trade secrets, intellectual properties, trademark dilution, etc. etc. etc.
I bet Steve is fricken pissed about this being released.
"all this proves is that viral marketing has nothing to do with sales."
Yeah, because selling 200,000 copies from an internet marketing campaign pales to the vast amount they would have sold if they had simply did nothing and let the label do all the work.
"someone from Billboard.. dismissing online viral sensations as being unimportant for 'real' sales"
Can someone please tell the The Chords, The Surfaris, Katrina and the Waves, Gary Numan, The Divinyls, and thousands of other one hit wonders that the reason they were one hit wonders is because the internet sucks as a means to distribute and promote music.
What, the internet was not around back then? Those musicians were one hit wonders because they simply were not very talented? You mean, untalented musicians were promoted by labels, sold millions of records, then dropped into obscurity before the internet?
Yes, fricken yes!
Every time a musician gets some success from the internet they find some reason to call it a fluke. Well, flukes have been the mainstay of the modern music business for several decades. Get used to it.
The internet gave Ok Go the world's ear. The world simply grew tired of what it was hearing. That's happened before the internet, during the internet, and well after the internet goes away. No one is guaranteed a lifelong career merely because of one hit, regardless of how it is promoted.
On the post: Because Only The Record Labels Are Supposed To Get Away With Not Paying Their Musicians...
And yet some people still dispute the power of the pen versus the power of the sword.
On the post: FCC Scammed Out Of Millions In Telco Scam
Re:
On the post: FCC Scammed Out Of Millions In Telco Scam
On the post: Where's The Outrage Over The Gov't Brushing Mass Privacy Violations Under The Rug?
Re: baaaaaaaa
Why are you siding with the terrorists?
On the post: Where's The Outrage Over The Gov't Brushing Mass Privacy Violations Under The Rug?
On the post: Pointless Stats: Number Of Patents Held By Apple, Google And HTC
Re: Hey ... look Ma future Prior Art !!
On the post: Pointless Stats: Number Of Patents Held By Apple, Google And HTC
Re: Re:
On the post: Pointless Stats: Number Of Patents Held By Apple, Google And HTC
Agreed, it's pointless to talk about the quantity of patents you have, it's the quality of patents that really matters.
Which is why my new patent will be the one to rule them all. You've heard of the one-click patent Amazon has. Wait for it...
The roll-over patent. Why should you have to move your mouse to a portion of a website and go through the trouble of clicking your mouse to buy what you want. My patent gets rid of the burdensome and tiring clicking.
If you want something, just move your mouse to what your want and we'll ship it to you. It's a simple as that. I'm going to be freaking rich!
On the post: Did Ok Go Free Itself From EMI? [Confirmed!]
Re: Re:
Where did I ever say that Gary Numan or the Divinyls did not "have substantial careers outside of their one hit." I didn't say any such thing, because the careers of Numan and the Divinyls were not the point of my post!!!!
The point of my post was that no one is ever guaranteed a perpetual career. Even if you use the label system, whether you use the internet, or whether you use a combination both (as Ok Go did).
So even if Ok Go's career is over (and I'm not saying it is, in fact it's impossible for me to make such a prediction) you cannot blame the internet for that fact.
Actually upon thinking about it, didn't Gary Numan give up music entirely to fly airplanes? Or was that Bruce Dickinson? Maybe it was both. But you know what, it does not matter one bit to what I was saying.
On the post: Sorry, There's No Silver Bullet Business Model For The Music Industry
And millions of peopled loved his recordings and his creative choices. Just like hundreds, maybe thousands of people love lo-fi.
"You are confusing standards of music with standards of music reproduction."
Actually, I was making a joke to explain a point. My point has already been said, a million subjective opinions does not make it an objective opinion.
I'm not disagreeing with your subjective opinions. You subjectively find more bits per second to be of a higher quality. Other people find less bits to be of a higher quality. No one is right and no one is wrong. Until somebody starts objectifying those beliefs.
On the post: Sorry, There's No Silver Bullet Business Model For The Music Industry
Re:
To you and to many other people. But not to everyone. I've already cited to two sources to prove my point.
"I strongly doubt that there are very many consumers (not artists) who would choose bad reproduction over good reproduction"
You might be right. But merely because millions of people subjectively agree on the same thing, does not make it an objective truth. If that's the case, then the music of Aerosmith is of a high objective quality. And I cannot possibly accept that as being true.
On the post: Sorry, There's No Silver Bullet Business Model For The Music Industry
Re:
Ever hear of Lo-fi music? Here's a bit from Wikipedia.
Some people love lo-fi. They think that genre of music is of high quality. (Much like a friend I had back in the 70s who would turn the bass way down and the treble way up. He thought the music sounded better because it was "more live." I have no idea what that meant.)
What you are doing is confusing quantity, the number of bits per second, with the the subjective value the music as to a person, which is quality.
Adding more bits to a sound does not necessary increase the quality of a song any more than adding more notes would.
On the post: Sorry, There's No Silver Bullet Business Model For The Music Industry
Re:
The reason is simple. There's a good reason both SACD and DVD-A failed miserably in the marketplace. Very few people give a frick. Heck, some people actually like the sound of MP3s more.
You might hate the sound of MP3s, but to force your subjective views on everyone is simply asinine and a waste of time.
On the post: Sorry, There's No Silver Bullet Business Model For The Music Industry
Sorry Mike, but you're wrong. I just used my incredible mind to create a business model which will save the music industry:
T-shirts, that can play ringtones.
Think about it, let it sink it in. It's pure genius, right?
On the post: The First Rule Of Developing For The iPhone Is: You Do Not Talk About Developing For The iPhone
Re:
On the post: The First Rule Of Developing For The iPhone Is: You Do Not Talk About Developing For The iPhone
So the infamous 1984 advertisement was actually brilliant irony?
On the post: The First Rule Of Developing For The iPhone Is: You Do Not Talk About Developing For The iPhone
I bet Steve is fricken pissed about this being released.
On the post: Did Ok Go Free Itself From EMI? [Confirmed!]
Re:
Yeah, because selling 200,000 copies from an internet marketing campaign pales to the vast amount they would have sold if they had simply did nothing and let the label do all the work.
On the post: Sorry, There's No Silver Bullet Business Model For The Music Industry
While on the other hand the labels claim we do not actually buy music but only license it.
On the post: Did Ok Go Free Itself From EMI? [Confirmed!]
Can someone please tell the The Chords, The Surfaris, Katrina and the Waves, Gary Numan, The Divinyls, and thousands of other one hit wonders that the reason they were one hit wonders is because the internet sucks as a means to distribute and promote music.
What, the internet was not around back then? Those musicians were one hit wonders because they simply were not very talented? You mean, untalented musicians were promoted by labels, sold millions of records, then dropped into obscurity before the internet?
Yes, fricken yes!
Every time a musician gets some success from the internet they find some reason to call it a fluke. Well, flukes have been the mainstay of the modern music business for several decades. Get used to it.
The internet gave Ok Go the world's ear. The world simply grew tired of what it was hearing. That's happened before the internet, during the internet, and well after the internet goes away. No one is guaranteed a lifelong career merely because of one hit, regardless of how it is promoted.
Next >>